I would hazard a guess that for UK it comes down to class warfare in some respect.. and in the players you have the "workers" or - considering they should be able to achieve a bourgeois lifestyle with their earnings from hockey - at they very least they are enemies of his enemy.

I don't say that with any real judgement intended, just seems like the arguments are being constructed to fit the basic assumptions that match that view.

Listercat wrote:The average person's annual income in Canada is $46K. The lowest paid NHLer's earn in excess of $500K a year. Darcy Hordichuk for example has been in the NHL for the past 6 years and has earned an average of about $675K pa or a little over $4 mil in that time. The "average" wage earner would have to work 86 years to accomplish that. Even at $100K per year they would have to work 40 years.

I take issue with anyone who feels their "career", if it ends in 6 years or 10 years should allow them to "retire". Whether its politicians or athletes it should piss off the working slob that is expected to pay for it.

That's a terrible example there Listercat!

It's a well known fact that Hordichuk is an intellectual giant and his physical prowess is unmatched. He would absolutely conquer in any field in which he chose to apply himself.

In all seriousness, your example of Hordichuk is probably the best one that can be given to highlight my problem with the NHL, and pro sports in general. Hordi would be a delivery truck swamper or a roughneck out on a drilling rig somewhere making less than $100K per/ann. He would actually have to work for most of his life and not be making cash that the average person would have to log 86 years to get.

Has anyone listened to Duncan Keith or Jonathan Toews in the media over the last few years? Their grasp of, what I presume to be, their first language is hilarious. These are two of the "elite" NHL'ers who are supposed to be the face(s) of the league. They can barely string together coherent sentences at times, and whenever Toews tries to give his opinion on the state of the league it has become fairly apparent that grades 11 and 12 were on the back burner while he was playing junior.

I think the NHL should move towards a system like the NBA or NFL. One where players come up through a college/university system. At least there would be an added dose of maturity and experience injected into the league.....hopefully.

coco_canuck wrote:It'd be nice if I didn't have to hold your hand through your own pseudo-intellectual arguments.

First you were arguing a difference in kind, and now you've capitulated to a difference in degree position that's on just as shaky ground.

and then you proceed to bury me in pseudo-intellectual language...

You fail to recognize that your statement that " the opportunity and path to pro sports is open to anyone regardless of class or stature" comes with a necessary condition that you minimize, and that' the endowed genetic/athletic ability that would allow, in a theoretical vacum, anyone in any class or stature to make it to pro sports. By definition, that becomes an exclusive club that is only open to those that fit that necessary condition.

Could you split a hair any finer? Your missing the forest for the trees, the argument for anyone who hasn't fallen asleep yet is that the players should be as entitled to their split of the cash cow as the owners because the work and the effort and the and the luck and the genetic ability and the kitchen sink it takes to get there is as at least as valid an entitlement as the owning of a franchise.

What you also fail to specify is that all sports are not readily open to anyone in any class or stature since some sports are costly to participate in, i.e. hockey, golf, many olympic level sports etc.

So, the only way your exhaustive and general statement holds true is if all sports are created equal, and are open to anyone in any class or stature.

omg should I have pointed out that being born and growing up in a landlocked African dictatorship would probably exclude one from any chance at being an NHL superstar too?

What you also take for granted is the ability to move into big business without having much stature nor being part of an affluent social class. If an individual is endowed with great intelligence and an innovative mind, that person can conquer big business without being born into affluence.

I'm not taking that for granted, I concede that there has been the odd "Mozart" or genius case and a few shit-house luck got rich success stories out there but for the most part what I am saying that is so rare its hardly worth mentioning...

Your arguments really are terrible and inconsistent. You bend your argument to appease the situation, but you still fail to realize that your entire form of argumentation has been fatally flawed throughout this discussion.

Maybe, but they are arguments while what you seem to be doing is cherry pick to suit yourself, and bury people in esoteric language preloaded with condescension and derision.

which is a shame because for the most part your arguments would be more entertaining and enlightening without the backhandedness.

ukcanuck wrote:Could you split a hair any finer? Your missing the forest for the trees, the argument for anyone who hasn't fallen asleep yet is that the players should be as entitled to their split of the cash cow as the owners because the work and the effort and the and the luck and the genetic ability and the kitchen sink it takes to get there is as at least as valid an entitlement as the owning of a franchise.

That's all fine and dandy, and I have no issue with the players being entitled to their fair share, and I'm not arguing in favor of the owners, but I'm arguing against your ludicrous sociopolitical opinions of the owners.

ukcanuck wrote:I'm not taking that for granted, I concede that there has been the odd "Mozart" or genius case and a few shit-house luck got rich success stories out there but for the most part what I am saying that is so rare its hardly worth mentioning...

Again, you're wrong.

There are far more opportunities to make it big in business than making it big in sports.

The internet boom is another example.

ukcanuck wrote:Maybe, but they are arguments while what you seem to be doing is cherry pick to suit yourself, and bury people in esoteric language preloaded with condescension and derision.

which is a shame because for the most part your arguments would be more entertaining and enlightening without the backhandedness.

ukcanuck wrote:Would that argument include the fact that the path to the board room goes right through private high schools, prep schools and elite universities that are not open to the general public and require not only money but the right connections and leverage to attend? Because if that argument doesn't have an answer for that, then its not going to be very convincing.

Where do you come up with this crap....

As someone who did a business degree and looked closely at doing an MBA, I can tell you point blank that you are talking out your ass.

ukcanuck wrote:Would that argument include the fact that the path to the board room goes right through private high schools, prep schools and elite universities that are not open to the general public and require not only money but the right connections and leverage to attend? Because if that argument doesn't have an answer for that, then its not going to be very convincing.

Where do you come up with this crap....

oops sorry I guess I should qualify, by boardroom I mean the top board rooms, the ones where the upper crust richest businessmen who own multi billion dollar sports franchises for fun do whatever it is they do to play with people's lives...

As someone who did a business degree and looked closely at doing an MBA, I can tell you point blank that you are talking out your ass.

I think you threw that in my face before but it means nothing, public colleges and mickey mouse universities puke out thousands of MBA's every year most of which end up working for the man or posting in fan forum sites.

ukcanuck wrote:I think you threw that in my face before but it means nothing, public colleges and mickey mouse universities puke out thousands of MBA's every year most of which end up working for the man or posting in fan forum sites.

ukcanuck wrote:I think you threw that in my face before but it means nothing, public colleges and mickey mouse universities puke out thousands of MBA's every year most of which end up working for the man or posting in fan forum sites.

Back in the day you needed about a B+ average on your undergrad, 650 ish on the GMAT, and roughly 60k in financing to go to a top Canadian school.

It had almost nothing to do with who you know, where you went to high school, or how rich your family was or any of the other crap you talked about.

If you had above average grades, a very good GMAT score and a decent credit rating you could get an MBA from an internationally ranked school. I doubt it has changed much.

Where you grades ranked among your class mates typically determined what doors opened from there.

ukcanuck wrote:I think you threw that in my face before but it means nothing, public colleges and mickey mouse universities puke out thousands of MBA's every year most of which end up working for the man or posting in fan forum sites.

What about you?

A devote follower of the man's hobby.

sigh, I guess so...a good Christian would recognise his own hypocrisy its true, but I just don't know how to walk away. Without acceding to anything I do see the major flaw in complaining about the state of affairs in which one plays a part. being a part of the problem is part of the problem after all.